New housing construction in Phoenix: Evidence of "new suburbanism"?

被引:32
作者
Atkinson-Palombo, Carol [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Arizona State Univ, Sch Geog Sci, Tempe, AZ 85287 USA
[2] Arizona State Univ, Sch Sustainabil, Tempe, AZ 85287 USA
关键词
Urban development; Density; Infill; Arizona; GIS; GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS; SMART GROWTH; SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT; LAND-USE; URBAN DISPERSION; CITY; SPRAWL; LOCATION; PREFERENCES; PATTERNS;
D O I
10.1016/j.cities.2009.10.001
中图分类号
TU98 [区域规划、城乡规划];
学科分类号
0814 ; 082803 ; 0833 ;
摘要
Stereotypical images of suburbs as homogeneous, residential neighborhoods comprised of single-family houses on individual lots have become synonymous with sprawl. Discourses on smart growth, new urbanism, and sustainability promote increasing residential density because housing is such a large part of the built environment. Recent literature has emphasized the potential for denser residential development at the urban fringe contesting the idea of monotonically decreasing density gradients that underpin traditional location models. Analysis of new housing completions between 1990 and 2005 in rapidly-growing metropolitan Phoenix, Arizona, examined changes in the form and location of new housing constructed in 2000-2005 compared to the prior decade, to identify patterns of densification. Features included rapid decentralization of multiple-family home construction, and the emergence of a wide range of multiple-family housing forms at the fringe, including large apartment complexes in accessible freeway locations, high-end condominium developments in high-amenity areas, and subsidized apartments in less-prestigious areas. Densification no longer equates to urban infill, but takes many forms and occurs all over the metropolitan region, especially the urban fringe where "new suburbanism" may be emerging in response to the "sustainability turn" in contemporary planning. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:77 / 86
页数:10
相关论文
共 66 条
[1]  
Agyeman J, 2005, J AM PLANN ASSOC, V71, P225
[2]  
Alexander D., 2002, LOCAL ENVIRON, V7, P397, DOI [10.1080/1354983022000027578, DOI 10.1080/1354983022000027578]
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2002, URBAN SPRAWL CAUSES
[4]  
*APA, 1997, GROWH SMART LEG GUID
[5]  
*AR DEP EC SEC, 2008, ANN REP FISC YEAR 20
[6]  
ATKINSONPALOMBO C, 2008, URBAN GEOGRAPHY
[7]  
Baldassare M, 1988, TROUBLE PARADISE SUB
[8]   Sustainable cities: Transport, energy, and urban form [J].
Banister, D ;
Watson, S ;
Wood, C .
ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING B-PLANNING & DESIGN, 1997, 24 (01) :125-143
[9]   Public policies for managing urban growth and protecting open space: policy instruments and lessons learned in the United States [J].
Bengston, DN ;
Fletcher, JO ;
Nelson, KC .
LANDSCAPE AND URBAN PLANNING, 2004, 69 (2-3) :271-286
[10]   Are we planning for sustainable development? An evaluation of 30 comprehensive plans [J].
Berke, PR ;
Conroy, MM .
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION, 2000, 66 (01) :21-33